THE LIBEL ACTION AGAINST JUDGE WARD.

Evening Star, Issue 3004, 4 October 1872, Page 4

THE LIBEL ACTION AGAINST JUDGE WARD.

In the Supreme Court at Christchurch on the 27th ult, before Mr Justice Grcsson, the case of Macassey v. Ward and another was argued in chambers. It came before him ai an application by the plaintiff for leave to administer certain interrogatories under section 10 of the .Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Amendment Act, The action was for an alleged libfel contained in the Thnaru Ikrahl newspaper, of the 17th May last, and it seeks to recover damages from the defendant, Charles Dudley Robert Ward, as the author, and the defendant, Herbert BeKield, as the printer and publisher of the said alleged libel. Upon the hearing of the motion, counsel for the plaintiff abandoned all the interrogatories except the first three, the avowed object of which was to show that the defendant Ward was the author of the alleged libel. Besides avowing that such is his object, the plaintiff by his affidavit states that without the evidence which he believes the answer to these interrogatories will procure, it would be unsafe for him to proceed to trial ; that he believes he will derive material benefit in the cause from the discovery which he seeks by the interrogatories ; that the exhibition of them is proposed in good faith, and solely to enable him to establish the authorship of the article by the defendant Waid ; that he has a good cause of action on the merits ; that the action is brought solely for the vindication of his name and character, and that if the answers to the interrogatories do not implicate the defendant Ward in the authorship of the defamatory article, he will .■discontinue the action against him and pay his costs of suit. The application was resisted as being one of a merely fishing character, and further as tending to criminate the defendant Belfield, and in support of this latter ground of objection an affidavit by him was used, in which he states that every several one of the said interrogatories has a tendency to criminate him in respect of publishing, or conspiring to publish the alleged libel. Judge Gresson decided that the interrogatories might be put, even if the tendency were to criminate the party interrogated, leaving it to such party to object after the order was made. But he did not see that the interrogratories could tend to add to the responsibility which Belli- Id has already incurred by complying with the Printers and Newspapers Act 18(18, section 12, at least so far as regards the present action, and he was protected by secti n 18 of tre last-mentioned Act from the discovery being used for any purpose in any other proceedings. The order asked for was accordingly made.